Standing Committee B

[Mr. Jonathan Sayeed in the Chair]

Energy Bill [Lords]

Clause 1 - Security and integrity of supply

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 41, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out from 'State' to end of line 5 and insert 
 ', having regard to the regulatory arrangements, shall have a duty to enable the framework whereby the market can ensure the security of electricity and gas supplies and the Secretary of State shall make regular reports to Parliament on these matters.'.—[Mr. Laurence Robertson.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Jonathan Sayeed: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 38A, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end add 
 ', in particular by promoting energy efficiency in all sectors'. 
Amendment No. 72, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end add— 
 '(2) The Secretary of State's duty under this section shall be wholly delegated to GEMA save and except after— 
 (a) GEMA has made a report to the Secretary of State setting out its reasons for believing that it has insufficient powers to carry out this duty, and 
 (b) the expiry of one year's notice of intended reversion of the duty to the Secretary of State.'. 
Amendment No. 73, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end add— 
 '(2) Such a duty shall in particular require the Secretary of State to have regard to— 
 (a) provision of supply in a national emergency, 
 (b) estimates of the long-term requirements for energy at the point of use, and 
 (c) the reduction in energy use achievable through conservation and efficiency measures.'. 
Amendment No. 74, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end add— 
 '(2) In the exercise of this duty he shall have regard to the reports and recommendations of the Joint Energy Supply Security working group in respect of their responsibility for monitoring and assessing risks to security of supply.'. 
Clause 1 stand part. 
 New clause 13—Security of supply report— 
 'The Secretary of State must in each calendar year, beginning with 2005, publish a report (''a security of supply report'') on the progress made in the reporting period towards maintaining and enhancing, if necessary, UK security of supply.'.

Laurence Robertson: I begin this part of my remarks by saying what a pleasure it is to see you chairing this Committee, Mr. Sayeed. We look forward to working with you.
 Before lunch, I was in the process of saying that we had had a good debate on the security of supply. It took all morning, but it was probably right to take so much time, because it is an important issue. In summing up, the Minister expressed sympathy for the clause that had been inserted by the Lords and, in particular, for my amendment No. 41. My understanding is that he promised to consider the amendment further. He said that he was not happy with all of it, but that there were parts that he would discuss with the Opposition immediately after the forthcoming recess, with a view to perhaps introducing something on Report. On the basis of those sympathetic remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 1 disagreed to.

Clause 2 - Annual reports under section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003

Desmond Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out 'and demonstration' and insert 'demonstration and deployment'.

Jonathan Sayeed: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Clause 2 stand part. 
 Clause 3 stand part. 
 Amendment No. 39, in 
clause 194, page 149, line 41, after 'section', insert 
 'and section [amendment of Sustainable Energy Act 2003]'. 
Government new clause 7—Reports under section 1 of Sustainable Energy Act 2003—and amendment (a) thereto: 
after ''clean coal technology;'' insert '(aa) coal mine methane;'. 
New clause 8—Environmental targets— 
 '(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent lay before each House of Parliament a report, prepared in consultation with the devolved administrations, on renewable energy and that report shall include— 
 (a) a set target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, with individual targets for each area covered by devolved administrations as agreed between the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved administrations for the following ten year period, 
 (b) a set target for the percentage of electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources, with individual targets for each area covered by devolved administrations as agreed between the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved administrations for the following ten year period, 
 (c) the amount of electricity being generated by each method of renewable energy, and 
 (d) a strategy for meeting the targets set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). 
 (2) In each year thereafter the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out— 
 (a) progress made towards the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target, 
 (b) progress made towards the renewable energy target, 
 (c) the amount of electricity being generated by each method of renewable energy, and
 (d) strategy for meeting the continuing targets for both greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy with proposals for any changes necessary for meeting the targets set in subsection (1)(a) and (b). 
 (3) At the end of the initial ten year period, and every ten years thereafter, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the measures specified in subsection (1) for the following ten year period and in every year thereafter lay before each House of Parliament the report specified in subsection (2).'. 
New clause 9—Report on sustainable energy policy commitments— 
 '(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish in such form as he sees fit an annual report on all the Government's energy policy commitments. 
 (2) In this section the term ''energy policy commitments'' means all those commitments so specified on the Government sustainable energy policy network website for the time being.'. 
New clause 10—Amendment of Sustainable Energy Act 2003— 
 After section 2 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 there is inserted— 
 ''2A Energy efficiency of business and public sector buildings: Secretary of State 
 (1) The Secretary of State must within one week beginning with the coming into force of this section designate under this subsection at least one energy efficiency aim. 
 (2) For the purposes of this section an ''energy efficiency aim'' is an aim which— 
 (a) is contained in a published document; 
 (b) relates to the energy efficiency of business and public sector buildings; 
 (c) specifies the amount of carbon dioxide to be saved from business and public sector buildings; and 
 (d) is compatible with European Union obligations and any other international obligations of the United Kingdom. 
 (3) The Secretary of State may, at any time after designation under subsection (1), designate under this subsection a further energy efficiency aim or aims. 
 (4) Where an energy efficiency aim is for the time being designated under this section, the Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to achieve the aim. 
 (5) In deciding which steps to take for the purposes of subsection (4), the Secretary of State must consider steps relating to the heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting and insulation of business and public sector buildings. 
 (6) A designation under this section may be withdrawn, but not if its withdrawal would result in there being no energy efficiency aim designated under this section. 
 (7) If an energy efficiency aim designated under this section ceases to meet the condition in subsection (2)(d) it ceases to be designated under this section, but if this results in there being no energy efficiency aim so designated the Secretary of State must without delay designate a new energy efficiency aim. 
 (8) A designation of an aim under this section, or a withdrawal or cessation of such a designation, must be published in such a way as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. 
 (9) A designation may be contained in the same published document as the aim itself. 
 (10) In this section ''business and public sector buildings'' means buildings specified under any enactments or otherwise as business or public sector buildings. 
 (11) This section shall come into force on 1st January 2005.''.'. 
New clause 12—Duty relating to energy provision and use— 
 'The Secretary of State shall have a duty to promote the efficient provision and use of energy [gas and electricity], and to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.'.

Desmond Turner: May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under you as Chairman for the first time, Mr. Sayeed? Putting you in the Chair is obviously a way of keeping you out of the discussion. I hope that you do not find it too frustrating an experience.
 Once again, the amendment will be redundant in practice because the clause will go, and I apologise to the Committee that I was not as sharp as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) in spotting that and tabling an amendment to the new clause in time for today's debate. I will endeavour to do that on Report instead. 
 Amendment No. 8 looks as if it may be just a piece of semantics, but it is not. There is a clear distinction between the research and development of a technology and its deployment. It is vital that we do not do the research and development only. We have a long and honourable history in research and development in this country, but a less successful history of deployment. It is a constant criticism of the Department of Trade and Industry that it is good at supporting research and development only until the work gets anywhere near commercial exploitation. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but that is what people in various industries have told us. 
 The difference is illustrated by what is happening with offshore wind power. The technology has already been researched and developed; one can buy a turbine off the shelf. If a turbine is going to be installed onshore, there is no need for any further Government help. For offshore installation, however, the Government have recognised that further help is needed to deploy the technology and are providing that through capital grants. 
 Under the amendment, such deployment would form part of the report. What matters is not just that we have a technology; we want to know how many megawatts of it are in place and how much progress has been made towards meeting the renewables target through its use. That is why I specifically want to insert the word ''deployment''. I want to make it clear that the Government will—as I believe they intend to—give whatever assistance is necessary. There may be means other than simple capital grants. The Government can help the deployment of technologies in all sorts of ways. We could expand on that all afternoon, but the Committee would not thank me for doing so, so I will not. 
 I want to make it clear in the Bill that the Government will assist the deployment of new technologies in any of the fields listed in clause 2 and new clause 7, and that that will be reported on, so that Parliament can note the progress that the Government are making and, if it is not satisfied with that progress, tell the Government to do better, if that is required.

Paddy Tipping: Will my hon. Friend use his amendment to talk about clean coal technology? He will know that there is a process called—

Jonathan Sayeed: Order. Can the hon. Gentleman speak up for the assistance of Hansard ?

Paddy Tipping: I will start again. I am glad that you have called me to order already, Mr. Sayeed. Could my hon. Friend relate the amendment to clean coal technology? Coal burns more cleanly if gasified. The research has been done, but we need to move from research to demonstration to deployment. Is he making the point that we need to do more than just the science; we need to put the science into practice?

Desmond Turner: My hon. Friend is right; that is exactly what I mean. I am talking about the move from creating the technology to using it, whatever the technology is. The only criterion is that it should contribute towards our aim of reducing carbon in energy use. That is the big criterion. I anticipate that the Government will support anything that will do that on a sustainable and potentially commercially viable basis. That is the purpose of the amendment, which is simple but vital. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not oppose the amendment. There is not much point in his accepting it, of course, because he is going to propose that the clause be withdrawn and replaced with a new clause. However, I hope that he will indicate that he will be receptive on Report to an amendment to new clause 7 that is similar to amendment No. 8.

Laurence Robertson: I shall speak more widely on the clause as it exists, which was inserted by the Lords. Indeed, discussing Lords amendments is becoming a habit. Will the Minister explain why he cannot run with the Lords amendment as it stands and why he feels the need to expand it? I am sure that there are good reasons for that.
 The list of fuels and energy sources in the Bill is impressive. There is a need to explain what is going on with regard to the development and the deployment of each different technology. We have clean coal technology, which we heard quite a bit about this morning. It is important to explore the possibilities of clean coal technology. I am not too technical a person, but I understand that such technologies exist. I also understand that they are, unfortunately, rather expensive. As we were saying this morning, the issue concerns how to obtain investment in the generating industry to ensure that coal-fired power stations can survive. 
 While we are at it, we might want to explore how the mining industry can survive, too. Clean coal technology provides a cost-effective and flexible means of generating electricity. We heard a lot about wind this morning—no doubt we shall hear a lot more about it before we have finished with the Bill—but the problem with it is that it is very intermittent and requires back-up from another traditional source of electricity. Coal is that traditional source. Back-up is not possible using nuclear power, although it is by gas and coal. If we are to meet the CO2 and other targets that are set by various EU directives, we must establish clean coal technology. 
 We discussed biomass in a recent statutory instrument Committee, and it presents obvious opportunities. A Government amendment later in the Bill addresses biofuel, and that will certainly be an 
 interesting discussion when we reach it. I do not intend to go through in detail the other amendments but as a result of parliamentary questions that I have asked, I have been concerned about the relatively low level of investment in research and development of those energy sources for the future. However, I hope that they are not too far in the future; there is the renewables obligation and the need to produce electricity cleanly, so I hope that we can develop such sources of power rather quicker than we appear to be doing. We do not hear an awful lot about what is being done; that is not to suggest than nothing is being done, but we do not hear a lot about, for example, how we are developing geothermal sources. The point of the original amendment was to enable us to hear more about how 
''the reports shall contain information on the development of new energy sources'', 
which is good. If nothing is going on, we must be aware of that, and address it. 
 I do not want to say much more at this stage, except to repeat that I should like the Minister to explain what the principal difference is between clause 2 and new clause 7, which he has tabled.

Brian White: May I start by quoting something that is currently happening in the United States? Two large American power companies—American Electric Power and Synergy—have been forced by their shareholders, against the wishes of their directors, to start to include assessments of climate risk in their annual reports. Shareholders have told the company that they recognise that climate change is happening, so they expect it to assess that and report on it annually. The shareholder who put the resolution to the board said:
 ''The consequences for the companies that do not act responsibly and take steps to assess and mitigate risk posed by climate change can be just as devastating to shareholders as the recent corporate scandals.'' 
Our equivalent is clauses 2 and 3. I start by welcoming the Minister's new clause 7. As I sponsored the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which it seeks to amend, I am pleased to welcome it. Together with new clause 9, to which I shall speak, it will institute a much fuller reporting regime than currently exists under that Act. When I speak to new clause 9, I shall outline in more detail why the reporting needs to be buttressed. 
 The original draft of the Sustainable Energy Bill contained a clause that was not unlike new clause 7. It provided that the Government should produce an annual report on the development of various renewable and low-carbon technologies. In Committee, the then Minister said that the clause was a step too far, and that it was too prescriptive to itemise the various energy sources and technologies on which there were to be annual reporting. 
 I very much agree with the thrust of new clause 7 even though I was persuaded not to push such a proposal to a vote last year on the words of the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who said:
 ''As part of the overall reporting progress, we shall report on the 135 specific commitments in the White Paper. We have already created a sustainable energy policy network, and we have published on its website the 10 work streams that will deliver those commitments''. —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 11 June 2003; c. 7.] 
The Opposition spokesmen changed every time, but halfway through the passage of that Bill, my hon. Friend became Energy Minister. I am pleased that he is still in that post. My right hon. Friend reiterated the commitment later when he said that 
''first, the White Paper is unambiguous in its targets; secondly, no one is reneging on them. I reaffirm all the targets, goals and aspirations set out in the White Paper; the Government are firmly and publicly wedded to them . . . we have an obligation to report on many fronts, and that is now to be enshrined in the Bill.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 11 June 2003; c. 22.] 
I welcome the fact that the Government took that on board and introduced new clause 7. 
 The report to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred was published for the first time last month and, disappointingly, it did not come up to my expectations in respect of the scope of the annual report. I therefore tabled new clause 9, which commits the Government to reporting on the 135 commitments, but I welcome new clause 7 as a way forward and a major step towards my objectives. 
 If the targets are to be achieved, and the aspirations set out in the White Paper are to be fulfilled, it is vital to keep an eye on the development of new technologies. I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) about how the various technologies should be deployed. 
 I wanted to consult the annual report and I asked the Vote Office and the Library for a copy, but neither could find it, so I thought I would look on the internet. I am used to looking for items on web pages, but I challenge the Minister to find the annual report easily on the Department of Trade and Industry website. It is there—I have a copy—because I finally came across it, but it was not easy to find. That is why last year many people were sceptical about how the Government were reacting. A search on the website takes us to a speech by the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). 
 New clauses 7 and 9 are both necessary. Without them, it will become more difficult to monitor the impact of the Government's energy policy, especially on fuel poverty and the low-income sector. It was said on Second Reading, and in this morning's sitting, that energy prices are starting to rise and the issues that were appropriate when fuel prices were falling are no longer apposite. The DTI must be required to assess the overall cost, and how low-income consumers can be compensated to avoid further increases and fuel poverty. New clause 7 goes some way to meeting those objectives, but new clause 9 would go even further. 
 I shall now explain why I believe it to be important to retain clause 3. Although that clause was inserted by the Opposition in the Lords, its provisions are of crucial concern to the industry, environmental campaigners and the fuel poverty movement. It places 
 a duty on the Government to publish an annual report and to indicate the steps that they have taken and propose to take 
''to secure carbon savings from domestic energy efficiency of 5MtC per annum by 2010.''
 The 5 megatons per annum was the 20 per cent. referred to in the White Paper; several Ministers have mentioned that. 
 For a long time, colleagues—not just those in the Committee—and I have been calling for that statutory target of 5 megatons of annual carbon savings from domestic energy efficiency to be achieved by 2010. That target was identified in the White Paper, and was discussed when the Sustainable Energy Act was passed last year, but when the energy efficiency aim was published earlier this year, the figure given was 4.2 megatons of savings, which is 80 per cent. of the original target. That was despite a number of assurances given by Ministers. Last May, before the change of Minister, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North said to an industry group that the Government had clear objectives, as outlined in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the White Paper, which referred to the 5 megatons of carbon, and that the group's members should take those paragraphs as read, and invest accordingly. 
 The hon. Member for Lewes spoke earlier about economic instruments. In July last year, the Treasury expressly stated, on page 5 of a consultation paper on economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency, that it was the Government's aim to save 5 megatons of carbon from domestic energy efficiency. 
 The permanent secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry, Sir Robin Young, in a letter on 22 August 2003 said that he could 
''confirm that the government remains committed to the White paper figures for around 5MtC by 2010.'' 
In September 2003, Sir Robin took the extraordinary step of asking for Hansard to be changed in order to clarify the matter, and sought confirmation that that clarification would be made in the bound volume. Six assurances were therefore given about the 5 megaton figure—four by Ministers, one by the permanent secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry, and one in the Treasury document. 
 When Lord Whitty argued against the clause in the House of Lords, he said that it was superfluous because the Government were about to announce their energy efficiency aim, which would address the matter. I have no doubt that he meant what he said, but when the energy efficiency aim was announced, there was widespread disappointment.

Andrew Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is all the more disappointing that that reduction is in the domestic sector, which is the most profligate and uses more than a quarter of all the energy? Reduction of the target from 5 to 4.2 megatons seems to be another case of following rather than setting the trend.

Brian White: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point, with which I entirely agree. The Government need to take a key lead on that sector. In the past,
 assurances were given to industry as signals to invest, and industry responded to those signals. What has caused a major crisis of confidence in the industry is the fact that those signals were strong, but when the energy efficiency aim was published, it did not confirm what had been said before.
 The Minister will have noticed that I was referring to a leaflet, which has been drafted by the Association for the Conservation of Energy, and which is about to be distributed to 100,000 of its members, who are employees of energy efficiency companies, local councils, and campaigning groups. Being a loyal Back Bencher, I tried to persuade the ACE not to print the leaflet, and it has so far agreed not to distribute it. However, frustrations are being expressed because commitments are being given through ministerial statements rather than in statute. If this commitment had been statutory, the civil servants who wish to frustrate the policy would not have been able to get away with it. There are major discussions in Government about what is the right level of carbon saving. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that other energy efficiency measures will ensure that the saving is more than 4.2 megatons. 
 As part of the pre-legislative scrutiny for the Communications Bill, the Puttnam Committee heard evidence from Sir Bryan Carsberg, the first telecommunications regulator. He said something that has struck home with me ever since. He said that if something is not on the face of a Bill or an Act of Parliament, regulators do not take notice of it—it may as well not exist. Ministers' statements and policy documents can as strong possible, but if something is not on the face of a Bill, regulators will not take notice of it. 
 Other people say that the courts can take account of what Ministers say in Committee. However, they do that only if there is an ambiguity. If it is clear that if there is a decision to remove clause 3, courts can clearly interpret that Parliament did not intend for there to be a 5 megaton carbon saving. That is my fear, and that is why I am urging the Minister as strongly as I can to reconsider his stance towards clause 3. 
 The Minister will say that there are other measures. However, paragraph 2.29 of the regulatory impact assessment, which we received just before the start of this morning's sitting, states: 
 ''A new aim of 5 MtC carbon savings in households by 2010 would require substantial new measures. Carbon savings of this magnitude could only be delivered by increasing the rate of installation of cavity wall insulations. The estimated costs of delivering these measures would be of the order of £1.5-2.0 Bn. If the additional activity cannot be added to the existing Energy Efficiency Commitment, these costs would have to be met by the exchequer.'' 
That gives it away. Strong Government measures, as were initially put forward, backed up by the energy efficiency aim and statute would have the added benefit of ensuring that the Government deliver, because civil servants would not be able to wriggle out of the commitments as they have recently. 
 A lot of disappointment has been expressed. I urge the Minister to reconsider the issue and not to push for the removal of the clause because of the negatives that 
 he set out. If he is determined to seek its removal, I am concerned that the argument will not go away. The Government have a good story to tell about the measures that they are taking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said this morning, the White Paper takes us down a carbon-free route for the first time. A positive Government story could become a negative story simply because we have not listened to the concerns of industry. 
 We are in danger of turning a win-win situation into a problem for the Government's credibility on energy commitment. Since more than half of MPs signed early-day motion 96, I hope that I have demonstrated that ministerial assurances, however well meant, are not enough. We need a statutory requirement for 5 megatons of carbon savings. 
 I am sure that the Minister would agree to meet us on this issue. I urge him not to push amendment No. 13 to a vote and to leave clause 3 in the Bill. He was very amenable in the earlier discussions. I hope that he can find a similar way forward here. If he does persist in removing clause 3, I am sure that there will be an amendment on Report. The arguments will not go away. Why are we so intent on scoring an own goal by removing the clause?

Michael Weir: All hon. Members who have spoken so far seem to be aiming for the same sort of targets, albeit by different routes. I reiterate what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said about deployment. It has long been a concern of mine that much of the talk about renewables has been purely theoretical. Offshore wind farms and wave or tidal power have not been deployed to any large extent to find out how much electricity they can generate. I would support the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
 I tabled new clause 8, which addresses many of the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). There were several calls this morning for reports on various aspects of energy policy on environmental matters. At times it seemed that Parliament might be in danger of report fatigue. New clause 8 proposes another annual report to Parliament on the subject, but one that will try to bring together related subjects. Much of this is covered by section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, but a bit of joined-up government seems to be required here to bring together two aspects of emissions and energy. 
 The present Environment Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would have ultimate responsibility for emissions and would also have responsibility for renewable and other energies. New clause 8 attempts to provide Parliament with an annual overall report on both those related matters, allied to specific targets. That is important, especially if clause 3 is removed from the Bill. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said, without these specific statutory targets, the matter will 
 undoubtedly slip. We need to know what the targets are and what progress is being made throughout the whole of the UK towards meeting them. 
 The Minister and hon. Members will be aware that specific responsibility for some of these matters in Scotland lies with the Scottish Executive and not this House. That is why new clause 8 makes the specific point that such a report must be prepared in consultation with the devolved Administrations. I would obviously love to have an independent Scotland with full responsibility for these matters, but until that glorious day we must work together for the internationally recognised targets for the UK. Even after independence, we will need to share this matter. It affects all of us in these islands. 
 The purpose of the new clause, which is perhaps worded imperfectly, is to set out clear, statutory targets both for renewable energy and carbon and for other greenhouse gas emissions. We can see how we are meeting these targets and the amount of energy that is being generated by renewable sources of energy. As I mentioned, I am concerned about how much energy is being derived at present from renewables and how realistic some of the targets are. There is undoubtedly a huge potential for renewable energy generation, particularly in Scotland. We have had hydroelectric power for many years. There is a huge potential for onshore and offshore, wave and tidal power, biomass and other sources. In practice at present, the only source of renewable energy apart from hydro that is producing a measurable amount of electricity is onshore wind power. However, that is running into increasing resistance because of the large number of wind farms being proposed across the country. 
 According to the Library, the contribution of all renewables to total energy consumption between 1990 and 2002 rose by a factor of 2.5. Although that might sound fairly impressive, it still amounts to a paltry 1.39 per cent. of total energy production. Even more revealing is the fact that, although the contribution of wind and wave energy to total energy consumption has risen by a factor of 125 since 1990, again it amounts to a paltry less than 0.5 per cent. of energy consumption. The figure is rising, but clearly there is a long way to go. 
 We must face the fact that, up to now, the total impact of all forms of renewable energy on our energy generation and consumption has been negligible. We are seeing improvements, because the first offshore wind farms are being built, as we heard this morning. I strongly suspect, however, that it will not be long before offshore wind runs into the same problems as onshore wind, and other interests lodge objections. We shall reach amendments on that later in our deliberations. 
 Despite the realities of renewables, the UK Government have set the target—or in truth, probably, the aspiration—of producing 20 per cent. of our energy from renewables by 2020. The Scottish Executive have gone much further, setting a target of 40 per cent. in the same time scale. In effect, we seek an 
 increase from less than 0.5 per cent. now to 20 or 40 per cent. in just 16 years. That is a massive increase, and to have any chance of meeting the target or getting anywhere near it, we will require a massive amount of investment very quickly. 
 We must be prepared to set those as statutory targets and to put in place a way of monitoring how we are doing in both areas, giving Parliament the chance, on an annual basis, to discuss these matters and consider where we are, our energy strategy and any measures necessary to meet the targets or to allow us to improve on where we are going with them. Otherwise, we have only aspirations. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East described the report that has been produced so far as disappointing. That is probably an understatement. Unless we are serious about the issue and have statutory targets to work towards and consider these matters annually, I suspect that we have no chance of meeting the targets. 
 I may sound sceptical about renewable energy, but I am not. I am opposed to nuclear power and believe that we must make real progress on all renewable energy, but there is a caveat to that, to which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown also referred. We need to see that renewable energy works and can deliver the energy that we need. We need to see that, by 2020 or whenever, renewable energy will be onstream and able to replace some of the existing energy generation.

Robert Key: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, although I fundamentally disagree with him about nuclear energy, because I am in favour of it. I agree that it is necessary to pursue renewable energy sources, but will targets be any good? Would it even be any good having wind farms onshore and offshore if we did not get the distribution system right? Currently, the grid cannot cope. Even if we had all the generation—whether it involved wave power, tidal power or whatever—if we did not have the infrastructure to distribute it, we would be spitting in the wind. That is the real problem. How would the hon. Gentleman tackle it? Should we not be tackling the national grid and new distribution systems first?

Michael Weir: I agree. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will recall that I made the same point this morning when we were discussing clause 1 and the question of the Minister's overriding duty in respect of security of energy supply. One problem is that much of the potential for offshore wind, wave or tidal power is in areas such as the north-west of Scotland or Wales, where the national grid is at its weakest. We need investment in the national grid. I suspect that we will deviate strongly about where that investment should come from, as I imagine that the current energy companies will not make it by themselves. I have long argued that the Government have to bite the bullet and invest not only in new technologies, but in the national grid, so the energy can be taken from its place of generation to its place of use.

Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 was passed, Ofgem has installed new meters and that that now costs a few pounds rather than several hundred pounds? Net metering can be useful for electricity in the grid. Several other changes that Ofgem has made on the demand side also go a long way to tackling and preventing some of long-distance grid problems that he is talking about.

Michael Weir: With respect, I suggest that the meters will not deal with the specific problem. I accept that they will go some way to deal with the consumption side of the problem, but we still need the volume of electricity for the mass market, and there must be an investment in the grid. We can have as many offshore wind farms or wave or tidal power generators as we like, but unless we can carry the electricity, they will do us no good. We cannot ignore the fact that the place of consumption is often different from the place of generation.
 What we need is something that covers all the issues. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made good points about energy efficiency and the targets for reduction in CO2. I agree with them, and I hope that clause 3 stays in the Bill because it is important to tackle the problems. New clause 8 is designed to bring the matters together. Having looked at it again, I accept that it has a fundamental flaw, in that it does not deal with energy consumption. That is an inadequacy, and it should also cover energy conservation and efficiency. All the points should be considered together, and I am attempting to bring them together in achievable targets that are reviewed and developed each year.

Joan Walley: May I say at the outset how pleased I am to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed? I am looking forward to our deliberations and ending up with a better Bill than we have before us at the moment.
 I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I repeat some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has said, but I make no apology. His points were important and built on so much experience of this place and the subject, and deserve to be fully considered by the Minister at this important stage of the Bill. 
 Government new clause 7 is admirable, but if the Minister is to avoid the own goal to which my hon. Friend referred, it will be incumbent on him to tell the Committee what is wrong with clause 3. Our debate on these amendments is an opportunity for the Minister and may even strengthen his hand. Before we return on Report, there may be similar discussions on new clause 1 with the energy efficiency industry, non-governmental organisations and Back Benchers on the Committee. We have a wealth of experience of this important subject, and there is time for the Minister to enter into a constructive dialogue. 
 At the heart of the debate on these amendments is a simple question; should the Bill include carbon savings amounting to 4.2 megatons or 5 megatons? That might seem a small difference, but it is very important, 
 because other issues that have to do with leadership, and trust in the Government, arise from it. Their response—if not in today's proceedings, then on Report—will be to send out a strong message to the country about whether we truly mean what we said in the energy White Paper, which suggested 5 megatons of carbon savings or whether we can say something one day and downgrade it the next. If there are good reasons for downgrading the 5 megatons of carbon savings to 4.2 megatons, I shall listen to them carefully; I am prepared to be convinced by the Minister. 
 If there are good reasons for retaining the original Government target, including the 14 assurances that have been catalogued by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, we should know what has changed since the publication of the energy White Paper. Successive Energy Ministers have stated that it is important to retain the 5 megatons target, and that message has been sent out to the industry. There is still time for the Minister carefully to consider the signals that arise from this debate, which will go out to the industry and to the country.

Norman Baker: Does the hon. Lady agree that the fact that business might be performing better than anticipated is not a good reason to downgrade the domestic target?

Joan Walley: It is always important that business performs as well as it can—not only in competitiveness and profitability, but in terms of Government targets. We heard from the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) that everything raised in the debate is connected to everything else. That point is well made: we should look not always to see where we are on the ladder, but two rungs up. We should set targets and a route map to take us from where we set out with the energy White Paper to where we must be to meet our international Kyoto commitments and to take a lead on the international stage.
 I noted carefully the DTI report on energy efficiency and the Government's plan for action, published in April, which is relevant to the amendment. It indicates that the Government welcome views being given. Indeed, it prints reading lists and refers to the DTI web page as well as details of how to contact the Government for further consultation. I am clear in my mind that there is every opportunity for the Government to take account of our proceedings this afternoon. The fact that the next phase of the energy efficiency commitment is subject to public consultation is integral to our debate. 
 The Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which was so competently taken through Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, requires the Secretary of State to designate an energy efficiency aim for residential accommodation. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Angus, that requirement relates to Scotland and to Wales. It is more important than ever that we concentrate on the 5 megatons commitment and do what we can to keep it in the Bill.
 As an aside, the Environmental Audit Committee—I am Vice-Chair and members of this Committee sit on it—took evidence only yesterday from the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust, and it became clear that meeting our energy efficiency targets includes not only England, but Scotland and Wales. I say to the hon. Member for Lewes that the targets we set must be reached through what is done not only in the domestic, public and business sectors, but in Wales and Scotland. Perhaps in the deliberations that the Minister may have with his civil servants as to how we can move back to leasing these 5 megatons of carbon savings, he might wish to look carefully at the contribution that Scotland and Wales could make. 
 The question I ask myself is, why have the Government come so far and promised so much, and why is there is a danger that they will falter slightly at this last hurdle in respect of the energy efficiency commitment? I refer the Minister to research undertaken by the Carbon Trust right across the public and private sectors. It has highlighted barriers to energy efficiency relating to just about every organisation it considered. Indeed, when he thinks about whether we should keep clause 3 as it stands, or modify it as is suggested in new clause 7, I ask him to look at those findings and to ask himself whether they might not apply equally to the DTI. It is important to consider the accuracy of the figures and the information put forward by the civil servants that will be used in the debate, which will define whether the targets are reachable. I want him to show strong leadership. I want him to be helped by our deliberations this afternoon so that we can make consideration on Report something we can be proud of. 
 I believe that the Government have already said that there will be a review in 2007, but I do not feel that we should wait until then. We should suggest now that 5 megatons is exactly what is needed, as the White Paper envisaged. 
 Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, I have met with various people on the issue, including the Association for the Conservation of Energy. Like him, I am fully aware of a draft newsletter that is being distributed around the country. It sets out the facts, without criticising the Government in any way, and shows how what was originally envisaged has been changed. There has been a step change down rather than a step change up. The Minister should take that into account, simply because we want the best possible outcome in terms of keeping the original objectives of clause 3. 
 Like my hon. Friend, I have looked at the regulatory impact assessment that we all received in sealed envelopes this morning. Paragraph 2.29 does indeed hint that one reason why the Government have decided to abandon the aspirations set out in the White Paper is the cost: 
 ''A new aim of 5MtC carbon savings in households by 2010 would require substantial new measures. Carbon savings of this magnitude could only be delivered by increasing the rate of installation of cavity wall insulation. The estimated costs of 
delivering these measures would be of the order of £1.5-2.0 Bn. If the additional activity cannot be added to the existing Energy Efficiency Commitment, these costs would have to be met by the Exchequer.'' 
The members of the Environmental Audit Committee have the benefit of evidence given by the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust only yesterday. I strongly urge the Minister to read it. There is a problem with the implementation plan, as the projections that the DTI promised have not yet been issued. That will determine how successful we are likely to be in delivering that commitment. 
 Just as importantly, it was suggested to us that there is a serious underestimate of what the savings to be made from appliances and white goods can deliver. The message that came across to our Committee yesterday is that the Government will achieve carbon savings that will not be counted because some measures still have not been factored into the plan. Why, then, will it be so difficult for us to reach the target of 5 megatons rather than 4.2 megatons? Is the Minister satisfied that the premise on which his civil servants have recommended that we cannot achieve 5 megatons has been fully explored? Should we not include the Carbon Trust and Energy Saving Trust in further discussions that will, I hope, take place before consideration on Report? 
 The regulatory impact assessment refers to what can be delivered through the installation of cavity wall insulation. Surely, measures other than the installation of cavity walls, such as the home condition report and the energy rating for every house, will also make a difference. Policy measures already in place could deliver the carbon saving that we seek. That might be a challenge, but it is certainly achievable. Should we not be working with the energy efficiency industry to secure a win-win situation? Should we not be working to ensure that Lord Whitty and previous Ministers who have given commitments on this are backed up by the action that we are going to implement? 
 Many people become MPs to make a difference and to change the world; I have been a Member for 17 years. In all seriousness, this is possibly the most pressing issue facing not only our country, but the international community. We have a group of Back Benchers who care passionately about the issue, and people across the country want clear signals from the Government that they can go full speed ahead for more exacting targets and standards. The Minister has an opportunity to send those signals and we look forward to hearing whether there is scope for further debate.

Andrew Stunell: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed, and to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). In a moment, I shall speak to new clause 12, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, but other matters are of great importance and the Minister must understand that the points made by hon. Members are shared across the Committee. We certainly support new clause 9, which
 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. It would be a useful and important part of the Bill.
 We are very disappointed that the Minister intends to oppose existing clauses 2 and 3 and, in his own words, table amendments to replace them with a single new clause that retains their basic principles. I found that sentence difficult to stomach. That new clause far from retains the basic principles of clause 3 in two main respects. First, as the last two contributors have mentioned, the new clause does not maintain the target of 5 megatons; in fact, it is devoid of targets. Secondly, it requires reporting only of what has been done, not of what is proposed. Furthermore, it requires reporting only of things that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Basically, it takes the guts out of clauses 2 and 3 and it is a long way from being satisfactory. It is more of a wrecking clause than a proposal that ''retains the basic principles'' of those two clauses. 
 I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that whatever the merits of the new clause, it cannot honestly be said to do what his letter to Members purports. The proposal is future-proofed in the sense that clothes are waterproofed: it does not let the future in at all. There is no report on what might be proposed in the future, and no future targets, only an historical document containing only the information that the Secretary of State considers might be beneficial. So, you will not be surprised to hear, Mr. Sayeed, that we support the retention of clauses 2 and 3 and oppose new clause 7. If the hon. Member for Sherwood were to press his amendment on coal mine methane to a Division, I would support it. I hope the Minister, too, would support that worthy proposal. We also support new clause 10. 
 The problems in all these matters is that Minister never has any difficulty in replying with calming, sympathetic words, but, almost inevitably, after two or three sentences he refers back to the ambitions set out in the White Paper, which, as I have said before, was a step down from the performance and innovation unit ambition. That was itself a step down from the royal commission report. Nevertheless, the White Paper is presented as something like the gold standard by which Government energy policy should be judged. 
 The problem is that a White Paper is not Government policy; it is not law, and it imposes no obligations on anyone—not even on the Minister, but certainly not on his successors. If there were a change of Government or even a change of Prime Minister, that White Paper could be put on the back shelf and forgotten. It would no longer be applicable and would have no force, moral or otherwise. 
 As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said, the regulator does not act on the basis of what is in the White Paper, and the long history of issuing social and environmental guidelines to Ofgem is a wonderful illustration of that. For years, while those guidelines were awaited or were in draft, I repeatedly asked Ofgem what it was doing about them. I was told that it was not going to do anything because they were 
 not yet published and in force. I approached Ofgem on the day that they came into force, only to be told, ''It will not change what we do because we have already been operating the guidelines in their draft form.'' 
 Ofgem operates only when it has clear, statutory obligations on it. For example, in relation to efficiency and conservation, if there are no obligations in the Bill, we can be pretty certain that no obligations will be put in place through the regulatory system. 
 The Committee is aware that the domestic sector is responsible for about 27 per cent. of this country's carbon emissions—more than those from the transport sector or any other single sector of energy consumption. It is well established that it is one of the least efficient and profligate users of energy. Through even the simple application of current best-practice technologies and of current standards to all housing stock, we could save at least 30 per cent.—some estimates suggest 50 per cent.—of the carbon emissions from our homes. 
 Paragraph 2.29 of the regulatory impact assessment, which has been referred to, somewhat misses the point. It says that carbon savings 
''could only be delivered by increasing the rate of installation of cavity wall insulation.'' 
Hon. Members might think that that is a good in its own right, but the paragraph then mentions the cost of doing that, although it is silent on the savings. The 800,000 tonnes of carbon emissions that will be foregone by lowering the target represent a massive burning of fossil fuel. If we did not burn that fossil fuel, we would not have to buy or import it. Cavity wall insulation would not simply cost something; it would save something. It would have been good to see a regulatory impact assessment that netted off costs against savings.

Brian White: The hon. Gentleman will know from work on his private Member's Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill that building new buildings that are zero carbon produces a net gain to start with. Is that not a much better way to make progress? Would it not have been part of any regulatory impact assessment looking at 5 megatons of savings?

Andrew Stunell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This morning he referred to the 70,000 houses to be built in Milton Keynes, and I am sure that he has on the tip of his tongue how many tonnes of carbon they would save if they were zero energy. One has only to look at the opportunities, even in the limited slice of the sector that is new build, to see how we could be moving towards carbon reduction targets much more rapidly.
 The regulatory impact assessment refers only to cavity wall insulation installation, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North pointed out. It is silent, for instance, on the possibility of installing micro-CHP units in homes. About 1 million domestic heating boilers are replaced each year, so a regulatory requirement on boosting them with a micro-CHP unit would have a significant impact by 2010 and clearly take a big bite out of the carbon tonnage reductions that we seek.
 What disappoints me about the energy efficiency report, which the Minister referred me to this morning, is that it is described as announcing a new aim. It does not say that the Government are cutting the 5-megaton target to which they have been committed by four or five Ministers over two years. Having been repeatedly challenged on that, they have always reinforced it. The report says, quite blandly, that the Government have announced a new aim. 
 When I made a similar point on Second Reading, the Minister seemed to say that the Government's assessment is that the savings will be lower than they first thought. I am sorry, but that is not how to set aims or targets, and it certainly is not how to prevent global climate change. We should spot where the trend is going and then introduce policies to make it go in the direction we want. However, rather than setting trends, the Government are simply following one. We sense that if in 18 months they decide that they will save only 3.8 megatons, we will have another energy efficiency report announcing a new aim to save 3.8 megatons, without conceding that the Government have given up on their original intention. 
 The Minister's defence relies on the fact that there have been big savings in the commercial and industrial sector and that even bigger savings are expected. That slightly skates over the point. As a DTI Minister, he is well aware that the basic reason for that is that the industrial and manufacturing sector is shrinking quickly. There is a lot of substitution with the commercial and service sector, and the lines could have crossed over by 2010, with the manufacturing sector having been reduced to such a small level that it can no longer make carbon emission savings to the budget while the commercial sector, racing uphill at the moment, positively contributes to that. I suspect that his solution to the problem—that the savings are happening somewhere else—will turn out to be unsustainable. 
 There are many easy gains in carbon reduction to be had at low or nil cost, particularly in the domestic sector. Investment in energy efficiency in the home will produce more carbon emission savings per £100 invested than investment in either wind turbines or nuclear power. Incidentally, investment in energy efficiency in the home is also a good deal less hassle, in the political sense, than installing either of the other two technologies. I therefore urge the Minister to remain robust about the targets for the carbon reduction that he hopes to see in the private sector and to ensure that this legislation builds that in, because if it is not in the Bill it sure as heck will not be anywhere else. 
 I could say a great deal more, but I gave an undertaking to the Government Whip that I would not deliberately hold things up. I want the Bill to go through and lots of things to happen. Please will the Minister reciprocate by leaving in clause 3? I hope that he will also support our new clause 12, which simply says that the Secretary of State shall have an obligation 
''to promote the efficient provision and use of energy . . . and to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.''
That, surely, is not exactly pushing the boat out. I urge him to listen to what is being said in Committee, to retain clause 3 and to support new clause 12.

Colin Challen: Knowing your commitment to these matters, Mr. Sayeed, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
 I have a growing sense of foreboding that I am joining a group of usual suspects, although I am encouraged, at least in my attitude, by this morning's contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who fears the inundation of his constituency under the waves. I think it is the Committee's duty to prevent that from happening, at the very least.

Paddy Tipping: I thought that our hon. Friend could walk on water.

Colin Challen: That is probably true. Indeed, it is probably true of most Labour Members.
 I want to comment on the potential removal of clause 3; I oppose the removal of the target of 5 megatons of carbon savings. How that target is given by the Government is another matter and we should consider it, at least by the time of proceedings on Report. Yesterday, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, I had the pleasure of speaking to senior representatives of the Energy Saving Trust. We asked them questions, including why the Government have revised their forecast of energy efficiency savings in the domestic sector by 2010 down from 5 megatons of carbon to 4. 
 Those representatives had no idea why the Government have taken that approach. I thought that the Government would have consulted them in depth in relation to changing the target. Indeed, given that they will be responsible for delivering on a good part of it, one would have thought that they would have been in at the ground floor arguing for change if they thought that necessary. As it was, they did not think that any change was necessary. They thought that 4.2 megatons was relatively easy to deliver. One suspects that we shall end up delivering a bit more than 4.2 megatons and congratulating ourselves on exceeding our targets. If those representatives say that 5 megatons is an adequate target, we should stick with it, because they are the people who will have to deliver it. 
 One important reason for trying to deliver that target is to try to change consumer behaviour. We seem to have found new ways to get the private and public sectors to increase their target. That is probably easier done, because we can tell the private and public sectors what to do, but it is often more difficult to tell consumers—shall we say the electorate—what to do. We should not continue to shy away from the challenge. We should say to consumers what we think is necessary and how it should be achieved. I am sorry that the target has been reduced. Perhaps this matter will have to be dealt with again on Report, depending on what happens in Committee.
 I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North about what we heard in the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday, when we found that the review of the projections in the Department of Trade and Industry's ''Energy Paper 68'' is something like six months late. I wonder how we are supposed to project energy savings, when we cannot even produce our projections for energy use. Is that not putting the cart before the horse? 
 I want to comment further on new clause 7. I notice that in new subsection (1A)(b) ''sources of nuclear energy'' are included as one of the areas that should be kept an eye on. The original clause 2, put forward by the Opposition, included a similar reference. 
 I confirmed with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, who initiated the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, that that Act contains no reference to nuclear energy. I should like to know why there is now agreement between the Opposition and the Government on including, in the Energy Bill, a reference to nuclear energy, a form of energy that I do not consider to be sustainable. We need to consider that carefully when we examine other clauses in the Bill, with particular reference to clause 13(2)(a), and clause 6(1)(a) and (d). If we consider those aspects in combination, it seems that we are leaving open a possibility—albeit only a possibility—of new nuclear build. 
 I heard the Minister say this morning that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority would have responsibilities only for ownership and finance for decommissioning Magnox stations, but it seems to me that the Bill could open the door to new nuclear build. Will the Minister confirm that the aim of the Energy Bill is to look to what sources of energy we should be encouraging in the future? Does he agree that to include the word ''nuclear'' in the Bill might suggest that we should also encourage new nuclear research, development and, possibly, build? 
 I should like to support the proposition made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that clean coal technology should be pursued more vigorously. We often praise Germany for its commitment to wind energy, but we should recognise that it still relies heavily on coal for about 90 per cent. of its energy needs. We should be selling the Germans new technology, as we should have been selling the Danes new technology in wind energy. We should see this Bill as containing not only an environmental policy but an industrial strategy. I hope that the Minister will note that point. 
 Finally, I seek clarification on a smaller issue in new clause 7. New subsection (1B)(j) refers to 
''other sources of energy, and technologies for the production of energy.'' 
Does that include solar power? To my knowledge, passive solar power does not generate electricity, although it serves as a source of energy. I do not consider it to be energy efficiency per se. Will the 
 Minister clarify whether that would be considered as an ''other source of energy'' within the terms of the new clause?

Richard Page: I am always delighted to be further down the speakers' list; most of the arguments have already been made, so I do not have to cover the ground at great length. The days of long speeches in Standing Committee have gone, to my regret.
 I am looking forward to seeing how the Minister will justify the replacement of clauses 2 and 3 with new clause 7. Clause 2 of the Bill as it came from the House of Lords needed strengthening rather than weakening by new clause 7, and there is no justification for the wiping out of clause 3. 
 I shall not repeat what was said by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. I think he has ministerial ambitions, because he put it so delicately. The underlying question was why the Government have taken away a target; something to aim for. The targets in clause 3 are utterly justifiable, but I wonder how the Government can square this argument; they support the Kyoto protocol but as soon as we have a target to aim for, they wipe it out. I shall be interested to see how the Minister will encourage everyone who has spoken in this Committee that we are going to have targets to tackle the ever-increasing CO2 that is being produced.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend asks why attempts are being made to remove the targets, but the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 was also weakened by having its targets removed when it was a Bill.

Richard Page: I am glad to hear that the Government are consistent in their position, from which, I suppose, we can take encouragement. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East obviously will be disappointed, as that means that he will have no chance of putting CO2 targets into the Bill. He will not have to protest too strongly—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has been deposed from his position already and is back to the Back Benches. I apologise to him for dashing his promotional chances so quickly in the game.
 New clause 7 is a follow-on from the removal of new clause 1, because it removes from Government a responsibility that should be there. I do not believe, of course, that the Secretary of State should have responsibility for acts of God affecting the supply of energy. However, if he does not put in place the capacity to generate the electricity that the nation needs, he has a responsibility that touches on clause 2. The Minister has already been described as a friendly and emollient person whom one can trust, but clause 2 does not seem to have any commitment to specific energy percentage increase. 
 There is an encouraging list of energy sources—I shall not read it out—but we do not know what is expected of each of them. There is a national figure for the percentage of energy in the grid obtained from renewables, starting encouragingly at 4.3 in 2003, rising all the way up to 10.4, but will we get there? How will the components be made up? The hon. Member 
 for Angus made the point about the targets well—I shall not repeat what he said—but I should like to see us go further. We must know where we are, and where we are going. 
 Some are sceptical about these figures. I want to be wrong and I should be delighted if we achieved the percentage targets, but if there is a shortfall, any year, we want to know early on in the game where we are failing and whether we are going to get anywhere near the target at all. Some of us—including perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—are desperately worried, with the run-down of the nuclear industry, that production of renewable energy will not be enough to fill the gap.

Robert Key: Quite right.

Richard Page: It is nice to know that at least one person in this Room agrees with me. The truth of the matter is that we all want renewables to be successful and we all want a reduction of CO2, but new clause 7 is a weakening measure, not a strengthening one. We must have a strengthening if we are to meet those targets.
 I should like to put a couple of points to the Minister. They are not special pleadings, but suggestions on how to help him reach his 10 per cent. target, which I believe is a target too far. We should re-examine waste incineration towards these renewable obligations. Hon. Members will say that that will produce CO2. Yes, that is right but a lot of countries burn. If we had a good and sensible incineration policy, we would reduce the amount of oil and gas that we burn for energy production. I believe that in 50 years' time people will say, ''Do you realise that those fools in 2004 were advocating burning oil and gas to generate electricity? Look what they have done to our chemical feedstocks. Look what they have done to our national economy.'' That is why I want anything and everything to be done to reduce the use of coal and gas. 
 Finally, I should like to talk about the electricity generated from biodegradable waste. Pyrolysis and gasification are being used. So if we grow a coppice of trees and put them through the system we can get support. But if I take a wooden pallet that is broken and put it through exactly the same system, I do not get any support. I cannot quite follow the logic behind that support. I should have thought that we wanted to go through our waste and wherever possible use these specialised methods of producing electricity. We would then be much better off. 
 Government new clause 7 reduces Government responsibility; it takes away from the Minister the requirement to answer for any failures. I believe that the British public want to know that they will have a security of supply and there is a grave doubt about that security. Unless the Minister can provide satisfactory answers, I for one, and possibly some other hon. Members, may wish to raise the matter on Report.

Paddy Tipping: One of the criticisms of the White Paper and, by implication, the Bill is that it is strong on vision, but short on delivery. That is perhaps an unfair criticism. The Bill and the White Paper lay out a
 number of signposts about where we want to go. That is broadly supported across the Commons. What is interesting about clause 2 and its potential replacement, Government new clause 7, is that they back up those signposts with a series of milestones; the notion of annual reviews.
 Annual reports can be extremely helpful. We have had the first annual report on the White Paper itself. It has given us an opportunity to take stock of how far the aspirations in the White Paper are being met and what more needs to be done. Much more needs to be done. I am comfortable with the notion behind clause 2 and the replacement in Government new clause 7 about annual reports. Both provide that the Secretary of State must produce reports on what been done. 
 I ask my colleagues to look closely at new clause 7 because it has an element in it about energy efficiency. I take my rubric from the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). I draw the Minister's attention to my amendment (a) to new clause 7 on coal mine methane. The Minister is familiar with the topic, from his present role and his previous position at the Treasury; he helped the coal mine methane industry by making changes in the climate change levy. If the amendment were accepted, progress on coal mine methane would be included in the annual report. 
 I should be particularly interested to compare the coal mine methane industry in Germany and France, where generation from coal mine methane—taking a noxious, polluting substance and turning it into energy—is happening on a large scale, with the industry in the UK. The annual report will show that progress in the UK in the past year has not been as good in that respect as in Germany and France, and I suspect that it will be the same next year. For example, Alkane Energy, based in north Nottinghamshire, is moving its activities from the UK to Germany, and Stratagas, which uses coal bed methane, has gone into liquidation. I want the annual report on coal mine methane to emphasise that methane is a really polluting emission; it is 10 times more of a pollutant than carbon dioxide, and we should take steps to use it more positively. We have the technology to do what they are doing in Germany and France, but there are problems in the UK.

Colin Challen: The evidence that I have read shows that methane is 60 to 100 times more of a warming gas than carbon.

Paddy Tipping: That may well be the case, and if we had annual reports, we would be able to discuss it. I am happy to stand corrected.
 The French and German Governments have introduced incentives and regulations to allow coal mine methane to be burnt. In Germany, especially, it is classed as a renewable. I accept that there are anxieties about that, but my simple point is that we have a serious pollutant and the technology to turn it into energy, but we are selling that technology to Germany. The industry in the UK is not taking off. We need to do more.
 The energy White Paper accepts that there is a problem. It states that a solution will be found, but that it has not yet been found. The Minister and the Department have commissioned a lot of work, and the solution on the table is that the Coal Authority will commission work in respect of safety problems and put projects out to tender for companies to deal with the problem of coal mine methane. Arkwright village had to be moved because of those problems, and a terrace in Barnsley is still boarded up. 
 I am not against the Coal Authority being involved, but I am concerned that it will put work out to tender and the contractor will produce schemes either to generate electricity, which I support and applaud, or to flare and burn the coal mine methane. If ever there was a missed opportunity, this could be it. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider this small amendment and add coal mine methane to the growing list, so that we can keep an annual check of what is happening to it. There is a problem, but technology is available to resolve it. Although we are working hard to resolve the problem, more needs to be done. 
 A number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have talked about clause 3. I should make a confession: I do not understand the plethora of energy efficiency and conservation schemes. However, I am confident that if we were to pull them together and set ambitious targets, we could make major changes. It is disappointing that the targets have been changed in the recently produced report on energy efficiency and conservation. It is not a difficult issue conceptually. We ought to bring forward simple schemes. It is easy to measure whether conservation and energy efficiency schemes can make carbon savings, and we ought to invest in them depending on their results. 
 Like many colleagues, I am anxious that clause 3 is being deleted from the Bill. I am satisfied that Government new clause 7 covers energy efficiency measures, but we may want to discuss the issue again on Report. If we are to meet the ambitious targets of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon savings by 2050, it is clear that we must set ambitious annual targets for energy efficiency, conservation and the domestic sector.

Anne McIntosh: I warmly welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. We have had an interesting debate, but I would like to make points that have not already been made.
 I am grateful to the Minister for alerting us to the fact that the Government intend to delete clauses 2 and 3, but I press him on that decision. I have carefully read the notes on the regulatory impact assessment. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) hinted, the Committee has not yet been persuaded that the Government's proposal is an improvement on the two existing clauses. 
 It is a matter of regret that the Government have announced that the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions levels were as high as they were in 2003. I am disappointed that carbon emissions have increased by 1.5 per cent. since 2002. In 1997, 152.9 
 megatons of carbon were emitted, and in 2003 the figure was similar—152.5 megatons. The Government often make verbal commitments to reducing emissions, but we have not yet seen them converted into firm commitments and a real reduction. 
 Those of us that were in the Chamber for Question Time this afternoon were fortunate to hear the hon. Member for Sherwood. Both he and I would have been surprised to hear an announcement from the Minister for the Environment that there will be a delay in implementation of the large combustion plant directive. We learn from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs document ''EU Emissions Trading Scheme'' that it is relying heavily on a reduction in flue gas desulphurisation to reduce emissions. I quote from page 71: 
 ''It is expected that limits on SO2 emissions from all sectors, and the power sector in particular, will progressively tighten over the years ahead due to both UK and European regulations''. 
It goes on to list directive numbers; for example, 1999/30. 
 In the interests of joined-up government, was the Minister aware that that announcement would be made? Where does it leave the Government's commitment to reducing emissions, particularly sulphur dioxide? I was taken by the decision to delay implementation. Can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the impact of that delay on their programme to reduce emissions, what the cost to industry will be—obviously, the regulatory impact assessment of clauses 2 and 3 does not go into that detail—and what the damage to the environment will be as a result? 
 I am mindful of the fact that several Labour Members represent constituencies that are heavily dependent on coal production. At present, 12 privately owned pits produce around 20 million tonnes of coal a year. In North Yorkshire, we are aware of the sad closure of pits in the neighbouring constituency of Selby. I wish to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), Yorkshire Forward and North Yorkshire county council in trying to assist the substantial number of people who will lose their jobs when the three pits close in July as a result of exhaustion of the large Selby coal complex. The Minister may like to take this opportunity to tell us where exactly in the scheme of either the original clause 2 or the Government's new clause 7 he puts coal and the new clean coal technology.

Denis Murphy: On a point of information, the Selby coal complex is not exhausted. More than 200 million tonnes of coal are available, but UK Coal decided that it could not economically extract the remaining reserves.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention; obviously, I do not directly represent that area.
 Against that background, it is interesting that, until recently, a biofuels plant was taking willow coppice from the vale of York in the Selby constituency and converting it to biofuel. Regrettably, it closed due to 
 lack of funds. We have made representations to the Government to see whether they would provide a grant, and the Minister has been helpful in that regard. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire alluded to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is more committed to nuclear power than others and has a strong view on it, which many of us respect. However, the Government's commitment to the ageing nuclear plants is unclear. At the moment, 25 per cent. of the UK's electricity is generated by 15 nuclear stations. We will obviously consider the issue later, but it is interesting that clause 2 and new clause 7 make no reference to the position of nuclear power. 
 I am mindful of the comments from the hon. Member for Angus, who spoke of the contribution that renewables will make. This morning—it may have been at Question Time rather than in Committee—he said that the Government had set a target of 20 per cent. renewables by 2020 and that the Scottish Parliament had set an even higher target. However, the fact that 80 per cent. of renewables are to come from wind farms suggests that there is a huge imbalance. In my humble submission, that is not a balanced renewables policy.

Laurence Robertson: An obsession.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend says that it verges on an obsession, but the Minister has the opportunity to put the record straight. Why should 80 per cent. of all renewables come from just one source? Why is that a balanced policy? I am open to being convinced.
 As other hon. Members have explained, some important items in clauses 2 and 3 are simply not carried forward into new clause 7, or indeed the Liberal Democrat version, new clause 12. Clause 2(3) refers specifically to annual reports setting out 
''what is being done by the Government, by government agencies, by UK research establishments, by UK universities'' 
and so on. I submit to the Minister that such an extensive annual report would, in effect, enable us to take an audit of the work being done on all energy policy.

Brian White: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is, among other things, a requirement in place under the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 to produce an annual report? The production of that report has allowed us to make many of our comments to the Government today and to express so much disappointment.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I would not disagree with what he says. I was going to refer to the submission by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown.

Richard Page: Does my hon. Friend agree that one purpose of Committees is to draw commitments from Ministers on issues such as what will appear in annual reports? That makes us all clear about what will emerge and there will be no backsliding by the
 Government of the day. I hope that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East appreciates and understands that point.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed. I think we are all rowing in the same direction and we are all trying to move away from the red lines in the sand, which we had this morning, Mr. Sayeed, when you were not with us.
 I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has done on this issue, which is reflected in the 2003 Act. I hope that I am endorsing that work. I hope also that he agrees that it would be a pity to lose the audit to which I referred. 
 In tabling his proposal, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown was trying to strengthen the existing clause, and I wait to see whether the Minister supports him. The references to carbon savings in clause 3 are quite specific, and I will take issue with the Government to put a bit of pressure on him. The report would involve only small additional costs—one person would be working on it for a month—so why does he want to remove the reference? 
 In summing up, I would argue that there is much to commend clauses 2 and 3 to the Committee. I particularly want to press the Minister as to where the clean coal technology will be in terms of the national allocation plan and, in particular, the delay in implementation of the large combustion plants directive. What are his plans for nuclear energy? Why is there no reference to nuclear energy in Government new clause 7? How can he claim that 80 per cent. of renewables from wind farms is a balanced renewables policy?

Denis Murphy: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed.
 The region that I come from, the north-east of England, is well placed to take advantage of many of the technologies outlined in new clause 7. My constituency has the first offshore wind farm in the UK, which has been there for nearly two years. In addition, there is an onshore wind farm at Blyth harbour and Newcastle university is a world leader in photovoltaics. 
 For almost 20 years, I have advocated the development of a clean energy centre based on clean coal technology. Although the rest of the units are in place, the one that is really lacking is, unfortunately, the investment in clean coal technology. We have the last remaining deep coal mine at Ellington—the last mine in the great northern coalfield—which has the potential to continue producing coal for another 50 years if we can overcome the environmental problems and challenges that coal faces. 
 For coal to remain an option, it must meet its environmental obligations. In my view, the only way to do that is for the Government to invest in clean coal technology. A policy framework should be implemented that encourages the generators to invest in new, more efficient, cleaner power plant. The UK used to be a world leader in developing clean coal technology, but that position was relinquished many years ago, as an anti-coal mindset swept all Departments.
 Today, the Government's commitment to clean coal technology, although welcome, is confined to small research and development. In energy paper 67, the Department of Trade and Industry outlined future plans for research and development, technology transfer and export promotion. The budget was then £12 million per annum. A further £17 million was allocated for bids from the cleaner coal technology programme between 2002 and 2005. 
 If the UK wants to make a significant contribution to cutting greenhouse gases, we need to build clean coal plant in the UK and sell the technology to coal users such as China and India. Research and development alone do not meet the challenge, welcome though they are. The DTI estimates that the UK's share of the world power equipment market could be some £30 billion over the next 10 years. 
 Coal will be increasingly used across the world for at least the next 50 years. Consequently, the main reason to invest in clean coal technology is not simply commercial, but the fact that it is the most effective way to tackle emissions from power stations.

Richard Page: I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I sincerely hope he is successful. He should bear it in mind that the Labour Government had exactly that policy in 1997, but they never got round to implementing it. What makes him think that he will be lucky this time, some seven years later?

Denis Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. Indeed, this could be the last throw of the dice for clean coal technology. I hope that the Minister gives a positive answer to the points that I raise today, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does as well.
 In 2001, as part of the preparation for the energy White Paper, the DTI reviewed the case for Government support for commercial-scale cleaner coal demonstration plant. The conclusion was, ''Maybe, but not yet.'' There were more discussions about the choice of technologies, but I genuinely take the view that if substantial, long-term improvements have to be made to power generation from coal, it is important to aim high. That means building plant that can take clean coal technology to a higher stage of development in terms of efficiency, emissions control and commercial viability. 
 A coal gasification process, which may involve IGCC—integrated gasification combined cycle—could provide the biggest step forward. Ideally, such projects should also provide a route to carbon capture or sequestration, to address the fundamental, long-term problem of all fossil fuels. 
 The value of investment in clean coal technology goes well beyond the interests of the coal sector. Power engineering and ancillary companies would benefit enormously from new contracts, with knock-on effects for employment and a boost to the manufacturing sectors of all local, often struggling, economies. I genuinely hope that the Minister replies positively on the way forward and the role that coal can still play in generating electricity in 20, 30 or 40 years.

Norman Baker: Following on from the hon. Gentleman's point, it is unfashionable to talk about coal these days from an environmental point of view, but there is benefit in doing so. He made a very valid point about the potential for the export of technology and best practice to countries such as China. After all, the carbon emissions that the UK produces are infinitesimally small compared with what China will produce in due course. Our old coal plants have an efficiency rate of 38 per cent., compared with the rate for China's current ones of 20 per cent., so, even now, much could be done to make improvements. Anything that helps such technology continually to improve and that keeps the option open—a long way down the track—for a return to coal for security of supply, coupled with clean coal technology, should be welcomed. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches would certainly do so.
 I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood about coal mine methane, and, in a way, it is astonishing that we have not yet dealt satisfactorily with that. He is right to raise the issue, and I hope the Minister gives him a fair response, assuming that he heard the point. I hope that he did. 
 The hon. Member for Sherwood was also right to draw attention to clause 3, although he was slightly generous with the Government. Perhaps he was trying to sweeten the pill by talking about the Bill having directional signposts, but the danger for energy efficiency is that signposts may say, ''Slow down'' or ''Give way''.

Paddy Tipping: I was trying to encourage the Minister on amendment (a) to Government new clause 7.

Norman Baker: That may be a sensible tactic. I do not know how such methods work in the Labour party, but I very much support the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
 New clause 12 was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove. I remind hon. Members that it would give the Secretary of State 
''a duty to promote the efficient provision and use of energy . . . and to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.'' 
That is a terribly important concept, which I think all of us in this Room would support. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred within 30 seconds of starting her speech to the problems of climate change. The Government therefore fully recognise that there is an issue with climate change to be dealt with. That thread has run through the Committee's deliberations. When we debated clause 1, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown tabled a proposal involving similar issues. New clause 12 would give the Secretary of State a duty 
''to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.'' 
That should be central to her work, and I am sure that the Minister will say that it is. I shall not rehearse the arguments on clause 1, but when the discussions take place on the revised version of that clause and what that duty should be, perhaps part of that consideration should concern ensuring the reduction of greenhouse 
 gases and tackling climate change. I hope that he responds positively on that, either today or in subsequent proceedings. 
 I turn now to the energy efficiency target, to which other hon. Members have rightly drawn attention. I want to express my disappointment and dismay at the unilateral and almost inexplicable reduction from 5 megatons to 4.2 megatons, which was announced with no preparation and no justification, as far as I can see. We are in danger of having a crystal ball Minister who rather than identifying where he wants to get to and setting policies accordingly, identifies where things are going anyway, predicts it and substitutes that target into the legislation and his forward planning. 
 On Second Reading, the Minister said in response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove: 
 ''I hope that I was able to make the position clear; we expect carbon savings from energy efficiency overall—household plus business—to be greater than they were in the White Paper because of the greater contribution from businesses.''—[Official Report, 10 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 124.] 
[Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would sometimes listen to what I say, rather than continually talking to the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart), who is sitting behind him. Perhaps if I wait a minute, he might hear this. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister. On Second Reading, he argued that the Government's overall target on energy efficiency would be met because of the increased contribution from businesses, which somehow justified the reduction in the target for the domestic sector. 
 There is a fundamental error in that approach, which is that the target set by the Minister is by no means an optimum target in any case. The Government have said that we have to secure at least a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions, but scientists now say that even that projection is inadequate to deal with climate change. Therefore, the fact that we might overshoot the target in one sector—the business sector—does not mean that we can let up on the domestic sector. We should regard that as a beneficial development, but we should not abandon our target for the domestic sector, which the Minister appears only too willing to do. 
 Will the Minister reflect carefully on that? If he does not want to listen to me or my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, he can listen to his own colleagues who have expressed dismay and concern and to their constructive comments on how the target can be reached. It can be reached if the Minister is prepared to set in place a structure and a framework to do so. I very much hope that he will. We are not interested in lowest common denominators; we are interested in achieving the best that we can, and I am not convinced that his new clause 7 will in any way do that.

Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a useful stepping-stone with new clauses 9 and 7 together? It may not be the full shilling, as he puts it, but it is a major step forward.

Norman Baker: I accept that there is a step forward. I would not use the word ''major'', but if that adjective is justified, it is with regard to the hon. Gentleman's new clause 9, rather than Government new clause 7. I am interested in securing the best possible outcome, and I have not yet heard a reason why we should compromise on the 5 megatons target. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, if someone can give me a good reason why we cannot meet the target and there is a genuine problem, let us hear it and we will be reasonable about it. But so far all we have heard is that because business is exceeding its target, we can cut the domestic target. That reason is not sufficient in my judgment. It represents an abdication of responsibility by the Department of Trade and Industry;, rather than setting trends, it is following them.
 I should like the Government to pursue an energy hierarchy. They have a waste hierarchy, which makes a lot of sense. We need an energy hierarchy, which should have energy efficiency and conservation at the top, as the priority to pursue, followed by renewables, then possibly gas or clean coal and, at the bottom, nuclear. That is my energy hierarchy. The Government should be pursuing energy policies to deliver their hierarchy. If it is the same as mine, great; if it is different, let us hear it. In any case, we would all agree that efficiency and conservation are at the top, so the Government's greatest efforts should be devoted towards those ends. We should not have the dilution of targets for no particular reason, which is what is before us this afternoon. 
 Notwithstanding the generosity of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East towards new clause 7—it undoubtedly has some welcome features—I have some problems with it. It is imperfect, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove. High up in the new clause is the word ''must'', which suggests an element of compulsion for the Minister. However, that word is qualified a line or two later by the words ''where appropriate'', which tends to suggest that ''must'' is not so strong. 
 As my hon. Friend said earlier, the reports under new clause 7 would be entirely retrospective and not set the framework for the future, giving us no confidence that problems would be dealt with satisfactorily by the actions proposed by a Minister. The real danger is that a future Secretary of State or relevant Energy Minister could produce a report that looked good but did not address the underlying problems because they could select the information in the report. I am sure that that would not happen with the present Minister, but the possibility exists because of how the new clause is drafted. I am sure that the Minister would want to ensure that that situation could not arise under one of his successors. 
 Will the Minister clarify his position on nuclear power? It is mentioned in new clause 7, and the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) 
 referred to it earlier. It is interesting that the Minister has chosen to include nuclear power in the reports made under section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, and I presume that that is because it is a sustainable energy source in the Government's view. Will he clarify whether he believes that nuclear energy should be put on a level playing field with clean coal technology, biomass, biofuels, fuel cells, photovoltaics and the other energy sources referred to in new clause 7? Or is it a drafting error by one of his officials? 
 That question goes to the heart of the Government's view of nuclear power, and it would help the Committee if we knew about it. We know where the Conservatives stand. They will not say it directly, although all the Members who speak say that they want nuclear power. Indeed, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire advocated an energy policy based on nuclear power and waste incineration, which strikes me as very unpopular in my constituency and others throughout the country.

Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party called for and built an incinerator in Sheffield?

Norman Baker: The reality is that the Lib Dem administration in Sheffield inherited the proposal from the previous council, although our colleagues now realise that it was not a sensible policy to be associated with. It is a useful lesson for us all, and I am happy to say that it is not Lib Dem policy to advocate incineration except in specialist cases, such as clinical waste, in which there is no safe alternative. That is different from the Conservative party's policy, but I am digressing, and you will pull me back to the amendment if I do so further, Mr. Sayeed.
 I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the points made by Labour Members in particular. I hope that he has understood that there is a need to maximise, and not minimise, our efforts to achieve energy efficiency and implement conservation measures. I hope that he has understood the warmth felt by Members on both sides towards clause 3 and has recognised that there are deficiencies with new clause 7, which he tabled as a substitute. 
 The new clause is not an improvement. The Minister said in his letter that he hoped that we would agree that the revision was an improvement. I have yet to hear one Committee member agree with that sentiment, so I hope that he will agree on reflection that clauses 2 and 3 are the preferred route to new clause 7.

Bob Blizzard: I, too, find it a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Sayeed.
 I rise briefly to support the inclusion of new subsection (1B)(j) in new clause 7. It is not in clause 2, so I regard that as an improvement on the existing provision. The reference in new paragraph (j) to 
''technologies for the production of energy, the use of which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, cut the United Kingdom's carbon emissions'' 
would include carbon capture and storage, about which I spoke this morning. Will the Minister confirm that?
 However, there should be a similar reference in proposed new subsection (1A)(b). That new paragraph refers to ensuring that we have sufficient 
''scientific and engineering expertise available in the United Kingdom . . . for the development of potential energy sources (including sources of nuclear energy)''. 
We should also ensure that we have sufficient engineering expertise available to develop technologies such as carbon capture and storage. In the interests of balance, if we give the example of nuclear energy as a possibility, we ought to include technologies and perhaps refer to carbon capture and storage. If we do not, it sends out the signal that we regard nuclear energy as the solution. As I argued this morning, we must have a number of options. Carbon capture and storage is a good option that may make the nuclear option unnecessary. Will the Minister consider that on Report? He may wish to bring forward an amendment to refine and improve new clause 7 further. 
 I do not wish to repeat all that I said this morning about carbon capture and storage, except to say that it has an enormous contribution to make.

Norman Baker: To security of supply?

Bob Blizzard: To security of supply, to emissions reduction and to the sustainable future that we want. It will take many years to make the transition to a fully sustainable energy system. During that time, whether we like it or not, we will have to generate energy from fossil fuels; we will be using coal and gas. It would make sense to capture CO2 from that coal and gas using the technology that I have described. Whether we like it or not, we will burn a lot of gas, so gas-fired power stations must be hooked up to the new technology. We have heard good comments about coal technology, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) said, carbon capture and storage goes beyond that.
 How can we possibly reach our target of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 unless we capture the carbon that we will give off in those years of generating electricity? We must capture it, store it and bury it in the depleted oil reservoirs and aquifiers deep beneath the North sea.

Alan Whitehead: It is incumbent on me, as the only person who has not yet contributed to this afternoon's debate, to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Sayeed. I look forward to solid deliberations under your chairmanship.
 I shall briefly discuss the question raised in proposed new subsection (1A) of new clause 7, which has already been mentioned. It states: 
 ''The report must include, in particular, all such information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate''. 
The hon. Member for Lewes made the point that, although the Secretary of State that we are—

Andrew Stunell: Blessed with?

Alan Whitehead: Blessed is exactly the word that I was about to use. Although the current Secretary of State would include things that are appropriate, would another Secretary of State include things that are
 inappropriate? I should be grateful for the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Minister on the matter when he replies to the debate.
 When considering what is appropriate, I wonder whether, on a wider scale, we can examine how the various energy sources and technologies relate to the market. That is the unsaid part of our discussions. We have debated what should be in new clause 7, assuming that it replaces the provisions under the Bill. Proposed new subsection (1B)(j) of new clause 7 refers to 
''other sources of energy, and technologies for the production of energy'' 
and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, suggests that carbon sequestration and other technologies could join the list. 
 The difficulty is the provision's description of the process. I, for one, do not entirely share the worries of the hon. Member for Lewes about the potential outcome for shadiness. On occasions, he is a little too suspicious of the Government's intentions, and indeed the intentions of anyone. [Interruption.] Well, sometimes, the hon. Gentleman questions his own motives in a constructive way. The provision largely determines what the Secretary of State will consider appropriate. The various suggestions under the new clause pretty much define an agenda for her to consider. 
 The new clause does not entirely define the relationship between various energy sources and technologies that are referred to, although proposed new section (1A)(a), (b) and (c) define the agenda that the Secretary of State should consider when she produces the report. 
 In addition to the agenda, new clause 7 refers to headings of various subjects that we must consider under proposed new section (1A)(a) to (j). However, given the aspirations set out in the energy White Paper, the matter is more complex than that. As has been said, in the immediate future we face a large proportion of our renewable energy being sourced mainly from offshore wind. The hon. Member for Lewes asked whether we are happy with that. The truth is that that may be the position in the immediate future precisely because of the relationship of offshore wind to the various charts that show how closely the current projected view of the pence per kilowatt-hour involved generation is represented by various technologies. Although onshore winds shade towards present competitiveness, offshore winds shade fairly close to it and other technologies shade a little further away. 
 Let us consider page 55 of the energy White Paper, entitled ''A Renewables Timeline''. It is not only illustrated in interesting colours, but sets out an interesting chart. It shows that we might predict that offshore wind will produce a high proportion of the total that the hon. Gentleman questions. Indeed, the 2010 target, shown in the energy White Paper in a fine salmon-coloured box, states:
 ''Renewables supply 10 per cent. of UK electricity. Onshore and offshore wind may be the largest contributor to the renewables generation mix in 2010''. 
A blue box to the right states: 
 ''Onshore and offshore wind and biomass may be the largest contributors to the renewables generation mix in 2020''. 
There are also various predictions. One on the timeline a little after 2010 states: 
 ''Biomass may be economically viable in mid-2010s.'' 
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown will be delighted with another box, if he has not seen it already: 
 ''Wave and tidal technologies may become commercially viable.'' 
Well to the right of that box, it is stated: 
 ''PV may be economically viable post-2020''. 
The point about the timelines is that they are predictions, not statements.

Desmond Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the predictions in the White Paper are essentially based on a continuation of present, or immediately past, behaviours and past or present policies? There is every reason to believe that if more determined steps were taken to promote the wave and tidal technologies, and even photovoltaics, those timelines could be drastically shortened.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend anticipates what I am about to say, and he hits the nail on the head. As the timelines are predictions, not statements of how things are, a number of variables can come into play and change the nature of those timelines. Indeed, rather than a list—which is, as it were, an agenda—one can almost envisage the various items listed as being rather like the old-style horse racing gambling machines in arcades. I am showing my age here. People put their money in and wound the wheel, then the little horses started going towards the finishing line. For inexplicable reasons—usually because the machine was dodgy and bent—a horse, which was not mine, would suddenly shoot towards the line and all the money would be lost.

Andrew Stunell: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not implying that his Minister's arrangements are dodgy, but the list is not alphabetical or chronological. Would he like to speculate on the basis on which it was drafted?

Alan Whitehead: I have long since ceased speculating on the reasons for these matters, ever since I looked for the portraits of kings and queens in Central Lobby and could not figure out why they were placed where they were, and why some were above others. The Clerk of Works told me that they were leftovers from portraits of kings and queens that were arranged chronologically around the side of the building, and that Mr. Pugin decided to put them where they were because they were spare. I suspect that a similar arrangement has informed the list in this proposal.
 The important point is that because the nature of the preparedness of the different energy sources will change over time according to what happens, the 
 reporting mechanism set out in new clause 7(2) will also change over time because of that additional dimension. 
 One element of the reporting process ought to be the progress towards the market of the various technologies. I would be most grateful for clarification as to whether that is what the Minister considers new clause 7 to mean so far as reporting is concerned. It should also cover questions about the maintenance of scientific and engineering expertise, the energy efficiency aims and the development of energy sources. We could have an interesting, useful, important and informative annual report on any development that has occurred and any research that has taken place, as well as on the extent to which such research has been carried out in the UK and how far it might provide for an industry in the UK. 
 However, reporting progress towards the market in terms of how the technology relates to other technologies might show it to be slipping behind. That would be interesting, but, in terms of the timeline and the imperative, I agree with other hon. Members that to use that variation of renewable supply to create the total percentage in the medium term gives us a much better chance of reaching longer-term targets by the proper implantation within renewable energy supply of a range of technologies that can develop on a wider basis. We should consider having an element of the report that provides the glue between the different agenda item headings and that indicates whether biomass is moving forward along the timeline.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. Does it not come down to the definition of ''things done''—the peculiar phrase that occurs in proposed new section (1A)(a), (b) and (c)? Will things done relate to what has been done by the Government or what has been done in a wider sense by society at large? Clarification of that might satisfy his point. Does he also agree that things to be done are equally important?

Alan Whitehead: Yes, I agree that things done and things to be done are important, but I am not as sure that ''things done'' quite covers it. I want to clarify that this is a question not just of things done, but of the
 position of the things that there are, relative to the market, after the various things that have been done are actually done. That is a different state of affairs.
 I have previously questioned the extent to which an assumption can be made that technology such as that under consideration can be brought to the market by means of the market. That seems to be an additional problem. The assumption is made in the energy White Paper—in most respects, I have nothing but praise for its ambition and its content—that the market will itself bring substantial elements of renewable technology to the market. It is true that there will be substantial Government investment in research and development and in trials, but the emphasis, which informs the timeline, is on the fact that the technologies will be fit for the market and invested in by the market, and will therefore be brought upon the scene to produce energy when the market decides it is appropriate to invest in the development of production facilities.

Brian White: My original sustainable energy Bill mentioned the generation of heat as well as the generation of electricity. Does my hon. Friend think that that is adequately covered in the new clause?

Alan Whitehead: I am worried about the extent to which hon. Members are anticipating my comments. I was going to give an example of combined heat and power, which is suffering on the market, although it need not do so. In terms of reporting, I wonder whether it is sufficient to say that if prices rise, the market will help CHP and therefore it will develop, or whether one has to say that there are indications that certain agenda items could do with additional support for them to be brought to market in the way that the timeline suggests.
 My plea is that the Minister will respond positively to my suggestion that an annual report is a holistic device. It should show us where we are on each agenda item and between agenda items, as well as how the timeline might change over time to reflect our ambitions for security of supply, the development of renewables and the coming to market of a wide range of technologies in the way that we advocate. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Nigel Griffiths.] 
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock till Tuesday 25 May at five minutes to Nine o'clock.